Re: British Accident 1sr Report Out - Thames Driver Not Being Blamed At This Point

[Mike Roebuck <Mike.Roebuck@cobblers.datacomm.ch>]

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:13:55 +1000, "Derick Wuen"
<cullend@webone.com.au> wrote:

>
>Mike Roebuck wrote in message ...
>>On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:04:55 +1000, "Derick Wuen"
>><cullend@webone.com.au> wrote:
>
>Main cause of both is systemic.
>
>At Ladbroke Grove the Thames driver must have been inattentive or
>incapacitated to ignore the yellow AWS warnings and then (apparently) a red.

or inexperienced, and believing he was looking at a clear signal - far
more likely, IMO, and entirely possible, given the "phantom signal"
theory  

>A secondman may have helped.

At Ladbroke Grove, not necessarily, At Southall, definitely. In the
old days, one would have bbeen required by the rule book if the AWS
was out of action.

 On-train safety gear, such as automatic train
>stop, would have helped.

If it had been fitted on the Thames unit, yes. It was fitted on the
HST, but not in uses, and wouldn't have helped there anyway

 Seems awfully similar to Southall to me.

Well, I think we'll have to differ on that, then

>>>My solution?
>>>
>>>1. Reregulate safety aspects with one authority with no other duties /
>>>conflicts of interest.
>>
>>The Government has stated its intention to remove responsibility for
>>rail safety from the Infrastructure operator, Railtrack. I assume it
>>will pass to a single body with no conflict of interest
>
>
>Given the combined abysmal performance of the "rail industry" and government
>to date, why do you assume that they will do the obvious thing?

Because, despite all the negative criticism he's getting, John
Prescott actually knows about transport, unlike most of his
predecessors, and his recent moves with regard to creating the
Strategic Rail Authority, and replacing the old Regulator with people
who have teeth and are prepared to use them, show that he's getting to
grips with sorting out the awful mess the last Government left behind
for him




>>
>I repeat: install automatic train stop in London metro area. No ifs, buts
>short-cuts, exceptions, lapsed intentions, second-best solutions.

In 1988, after the publication of the Hidden Report into the Clapham
disaster, Cecil Parkinson, then Transport Minister, promised it would
be installed nationwide: in 1995 the Tory Government reneged on the
promise - getting the money out of the Treasury for anything other
than arms is always a joke!  Prescott made the same pledge after
Ladbroke Grove. Railtrack have stated they will pay for it out of
their earnings. Pigs might fly first - we'll see :-)


>>>3. Any driver SPADDING gets instantly dismissed (if survives), by law.
>>>
>>>The last may sound draconian and unfair given the poor engineering and
>>>management, but it might make drivers slow down and look at signals before
>>>proceeding, even at cost of disruption of operator's schedules.
>>
>>It is a totally unfair suggestion. The majority of SPADs are signal
>>overshoots by a couple of metres caused sometimes by bad judgement on
>>the part of the driver, but also by slippery rails, etc. There is no
>>element of deliberate action here, and dismissal is not justified in
>>such cases. Every SPAD in the UK, without exception, is investigated.
>>Drivers are relieved of their turn of duty and drink/drugs - tested.
>>Disciplinary procedures are followed, but a dismissal would only
>>follow if the transgression really was severe.
>
>
>Unfair but safe.

Unfair and unrealistic. You'd never get it past the unions. The
technology for driverless operation has been around for a long time.
We have several suburban railways in Europe that use it. If you really
one a drastic solution, this is the one to go for. But, as I said,
you'ld never get it past the unions

>> This would
>>>start to hit operators where it hurts (hip pocket) and they would then
>>>pressure infrastructure providers to lift game.
>
>>>
>>it would only hit the operators' pockets if they incurred penalties
>>for late running. If such a system were to be introduced , the
>>timetable would be recast to take account of the longer journey times.
>
>
>Given the long list of signalling black spots, the schedule would be
>completely disrupted. This would certainly hit the hip pocket nerve.
>
Not really true. When the penalty payments scheme came in, all the
schedules were rejigged by the operators to add lots of "recovery"
time so they could escape them. This means plenty of trains arrive
early, in practise, but to actually rejig the timetable to take into
account a load of speed restrictions at suspect signal locations would
not be more difficult.

>>So no penalty payments.

cheers

-- 
Mike Roebuck, Riehen, Switzerland  icq#7018252 
'53 M Y* L-- KQ+ C c++ B11 Sh11 FCYork SSWFC R(Basle)
Reply To: mike(dot)roebuck(at)datacomm(dot)ch